All American soldiers are out of Iraq by tomorrow

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-24-2006, 05:57 PM

In your opinion, what happens next?

Thorgrim · 11-24-2006, 06:20 PM

The Sunni insurgents clean the clocks out the Shi'ites, despite being numerically outnumbered, then the Sunnis turn on the terrorists, right around that time things get fuzzy because do the kurds/turks/syrians/iranians come in?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-24-2006, 06:23 PM

I wonder how America is going to try to influence things after a pull out. We're not going to simply sit back and see what happens. We'll pick a proxy and help them. But who will it be?

Thorgrim · 11-24-2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder how America is going to try to influence things after a pull out. We're not going to simply sit back and see what happens. We'll pick a proxy and help them. But who will it be?

The two powerful shia groups are either anti-american (mahdi) or are so close to Iran they might as well be called an Iranian Expeditionary Force (the Badr Corp) the Sunnis have too many ties to terrorists, and the Kurds...we'd have problems with Turkey

lock · 11-24-2006, 06:36 PM

I belive iran and the sunnis would take the chance to take a leap at isreal. After that more militans would jump on the band wagon at isreal. Russia mite take the chance to get some land in the confusion. China and N.K. mite jump in for the same reasons. After than europe will moraly feel obligated to help isreal and fight "Red Terror" Than america would eventualy have to jump in again and help. This = Nuke wars. The world has a problem right now, and we need to fix it.

This isent what alha would have wanted

lol

-Lock

JaJae · 11-25-2006, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

In your opinion, what happens next?

Please provide us with your opinion in your thread. Thanks.

Scrum · 11-25-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

In your opinion, what happens next?

We are immediatly hit by hundreds of 9/11 style attacks and we're all speaking arabic by next week and living under islamic law.

7960 · 11-25-2006, 02:11 AM

syria, iran, turkey, and anyone else who feels like taking a chance at owning another country pours people over the borders to land-grab whatever they can.

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 02:39 AM

We wont be leaving Iraq. I laugh at all those folks that claimed they were going to 'Vote our Troops Home'. LOL Did you really believe that crap.
We will establish permanent bases in Iraq and be stationing troops there for the next 50 years. Believe it.

The war on terror or what ever you want to call it, is far more important than what most people think. In radical islam we have an enemy that wishes to crusade against non-muslims. Crusade.

Just listen to Iran's president. He speaks of pushing Israel into the sea. Do you think a madman of that nature will be satiated will the killing of just one country? Was Hitler satisfied after his first bold move? No and no are the answers. We are the ultimate goal, do NOT be foolish and think otherwise.

avsp · 11-25-2006, 06:02 AM

In the first days-weeks

possibly less random sectarian violence as the foreign regimes tell their proxies to 'cool it'

probably protracted leader-targeted conflict between & within Shia groupings

likely mobilisation of armed forces in neighbouring states

almost certainly massive oil price rise

definately lots of threads here blaming the situation on reds, blues, conservatives, liberals, ..., & PNAC

In the less immediate term

impossible to predict as the situation would be so confused & fluid, ..., but there is a significant chance of ever more widespread & common horrific sectarian violence in Iraq. The belief that others might intervene will cause all the neighbouring states to intervene. Those who have 'end time' beliefs or thrive from anarchy will target Saudi oil facilities leading to WWIII

The best bet for avoiding all this would be the emergence of a 'strong leader', likely to adopt a Saddam style regime of control by brutality. Such a person could be a 'cold war' style General, ..., you know, the kind of guy that Rumsfeld et al used to back back then

Alternatively the Arab League might put together their own peacekeeping MNF & get UN mandate to try to avoid f*cking it up further in their own novel fashion.

cliffs: we're f*cked

Scrum · 11-25-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

We wont be leaving Iraq. I laugh at all those folks that claimed they were going to 'Vote our Troops Home'. LOL Did you really believe that crap.
We will establish permanent bases in Iraq and be stationing troops there for the next 50 years. Believe it.

The war on terror or what ever you want to call it, is far more important than what most people think. In radical islam we have an enemy that wishes to crusade against non-muslims. Crusade.

Just listen to Iran's president. He speaks of pushing Israel into the sea. Do you think a madman of that nature will be satiated will the killing of just one country? Was Hitler satisfied after his first bold move? No and no are the answers. We are the ultimate goal, do NOT be foolish and think otherwise.

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

The best bet for avoiding all this would be the emergence of a 'strong leader', likely to adopt a Saddam style regime of control by brutality.

I think you're on target here. This leader would most likely be an Iranian proxy backed by the Iranian military.

That would not be good for us, as oil prices would be 100+ a barrel. Although that scenario may well force us into new technologies. That could by a huge advancement for us.

Diamond Cross · 11-25-2006, 06:10 PM

I seriously doubt that oil prices would be affected or affected that bad. After all, Iraq only gives us about 5% of our oil.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-25-2006, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I seriously doubt that oil prices would be affected or affected that bad. After all, Iraq only gives us about 5% of our oil.

yes but there's the "regional stability" factor.

Donkey® · 11-25-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by lock

I belive iran and the sunnis would take the chance to take a leap at isreal. After that more militans would jump on the band wagon at isreal. Russia mite take the chance to get some land in the confusion. China and N.K. mite jump in for the same reasons. After than europe will moraly feel obligated to help isreal and fight "Red Terror" Than america would eventualy have to jump in again and help. This = Nuke wars. The world has a problem right now, and we need to fix it.

This isent what alha would have wanted lol

-Lock

What? Pretty ridiculous assumptions there.

What would happen is what is going on right now. They are killing each other like we're not even there anyway. Eventually, someone would win and there would be stability. I think one issue that would arise is the fact that Saddam might even be sprung from prison if we left now. Iran wouldn't do anything. Nobody would attack Israel. Russia? Please.

Donkey® · 11-25-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

syria, iran, turkey, and anyone else who feels like taking a chance at owning another country pours people over the borders to land-grab whatever they can.

Where are you guys pulling assumptions like this from? This is absolutely ridiculous. Turkey, POSSIBLY would attack because they are tired of being attacked by the Kurds...but that wouldn't be a "land grab."

MoTaVa · 11-26-2006, 07:21 PM

I do think Iran would insert the own figure head leader in Iraq. That would cause some of the fence riding Arab and muslim countries to take their side. We would then be further isolated while Iran and the other radicals feel more empowered. In that atmosphere Israel would certainly feel threatened. I thnk with very good reason.

avsp · 11-27-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I seriously doubt that oil prices would be affected or affected that bad. After all, Iraq only gives us about 5% of our oil.

Even if your figure is right, ALL the oil become more expensive FOR EVERYONE not just Iraqs sales to the USA.

You may think that the price of oil in bumf*ckville somewhereelseistan is of no consequence to you, ..., but you're wrong for so many reasons that i cant begin to list them

The view that only 'our' (ie your) oil prices count is exactly the kind of thinking that causes mess's like this.

i need a fag, you can tell cant you?

avsp · 11-27-2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

I do think Iran would insert the own figure head leader in Iraq. That would cause some of the fence riding Arab and muslim countries to take their side. We would then be further isolated while Iran and the other radicals feel more empowered. In that atmosphere Israel would certainly feel threatened. I thnk with very good reason.

were this likely to about to happen would you advocate covert US support for Sunni insurgents?

the fact is that virtually any action (including doing f*ck all) by the coalition is likely to be destabilising, ..., that why i keep saying that we're f*cked

7960 · 11-27-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Where are you guys pulling assumptions like this from? This is absolutely ridiculous. Turkey, POSSIBLY would attack because they are tired of being attacked by the Kurds...but that wouldn't be a "land grab."

From the fact that those countries are currently sending insurgents there to fight.

If we didn't like canadia and were sending people there to destabilize the country and all the sudden the only semi-stabilizing force left then IMO the next logical step would be to send *more* people there.

But I can see your logic of sending people to destabilize and then when it happens, leaving and laughing while saying "Oh shitz it worked! It actually WORKED!!" like it was a college frat prank